Monday, October 1, 2012

Subsidiarity

We seem to be hearing a lot about “subsidiarity” lately.“Subsidiarity” is enshrined in Article 5 of the
European Union Treaty, where it is specified that (apart from areas exclusively
in its competence) the Union should not act in other areas unless its action would be more effective
than action at the national, regional, or local level.Like most things European,
however, “subsidiarity” has a longer history which predates the problematic
European Union.It is commonly associated with
the thinking of the 20th-century, aristocratic, German Jesuit Oswald
von Nell-Breuning (1890-1991) and more famously with Pope Piux XI’s 1931
encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (which von
Nell-Breuning is thought to have influenced.) In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI asserted that
“every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members
of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them” (Quadragesimo Anno 79). As I understand it, the operative
idea underlying “subsidiarity” seems to be to maintain what I would prefer to label “zones
of free activity within society" - lest an all-powerful State arrogate all
activity to itself, leaving only itself and atomized individuals. That, of
course, was what Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) famously envisioned in his magisterial
Leviathan - anoutcome that was so effectively illustrated
in the familiar frontispiece of the 1651 edition of Leviathan. Of course, Leviathan's all-popwerful sovereign was seen by Hobbes as a necessary remedy for the inevitable consequences of human individualism, which unchecked could only result in a war of all against all. It is, in fact, individualism which historically has weakened the power of organic communities and social associations, eventually producing a situation in which there is nothign between atomized indiviudals and the State. Whether it is right-wing, captialist, "free-market" indiviudalism or left-wing, lifestyle individualism, the result is similar.So "subsidiarity" makes serious sense as an argument against both excessive liberty and unlimited state power. An argument for limited government is not an
argument against government. Whatever
its current uses or misuses, “subsidiarity” is not about small
government as a value in itself, but about limited
government. That is, it is about government fulfilling its mission to “promote
the general welfare,” in a way which complements, respects, and reinforces the
roles, responsibilities, and activities of authentic human communities (among
them families, churches, voluntary associations, etc.). The principle at the heart of this is that
such “zones of free activity within society" - the authentic human communities experienced
in families, churches, voluntary associations, etc. - contribute to human
well-being in a fundamental and essential way. Therefore, it would be contrary
to the common good of society to try to destroy such communities (as
totalitarian systems typically try to do) or less directly to force them, in effect, out of
business, something which governmental efforts to universalize an elite-group social agenda have
already begun to do and may yet end up doing on a wider scale.

At the same time, “subsidiarity” is certainly no argument for abandoning public activity on
behalf of “the general welfare” to individual benevolence, as is sometimes
strangely suggested. Philosophical considerations aside, the practical
absurdity of that is evident. For example, Catholic Charities annually
distributes billions of dollars in service to the poor, but much of that comes from government assistance of one sort or other. It is ideological
mystification to suggest that the cuts some have proposed in government
spending would simply shift such service to the poor from an alien government
to private charities - and to label that “subsidiarity.” Rather,
the most likely outcome would simply be a radical reduction in the ability of
those charitable associations to act effectively on behalf of those they serve.

Again the important value in all this is human
well-being and the common good, both of which require the survival of such “zones of free
activity within society" and a national government able to act effectively to “promote
the general welfare.” Thus, for example, anticipating our contemporary
experience of increasing inequality, Blessed Pope John XXIII wrote in 1963: “experience
has taught us that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard
to economic, political and cultural matters, inequalities between the citizens
tend to become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as
a result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfillment of
duties is compromised.(Pacem in Terris, 63).

About Me

Rev. Ronald Franco, CSP, is a member of the Missionary Society of Saint Paul the Apostle (The Paulist Fathers) and Vice-Postulator for the Canonization Cause of Paulist Founder, Isaac Hecker. He is Pastor of Immaculate Conception Parish, Knoxville, TN,